Reuven Sussman, Robert Gifford, and Wokje Abrahamse

December 2016

Social Mobilization: How to Encourage Action on Climate Change

PACIFIC INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE SOLUTIONS

University of VictoriaPO Box 1700 STN CSCVictoria, BC V8W 2Y2

Phone 250-853-3595 Fax 250-853-3597E-mail pics@uvic.caWeb pics.uvic.ca

The Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions gratefully acknowledges the generous endow-ment provided by the Province of British Columbia through the Ministry of Environment in 2008. This funding is enabling ongoing independent research aimed at developing innovative climate change solutions, opportunities for adaptation, and steps toward achieving a vibrant low-carbon economy.

Author affiliations: Reuven Sussman, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy; Washington, DC, USA Robert Gifford, University of Victoria; Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Wokje Abrahamse, Victoria University of Wellington; Wellington, New Zealand

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Naomi Baum for her feedback during the editing process.

3

Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

1. INTRODUCTION 5

2. THEORIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR AND BARRIERS TO CHANGE 5

3. THEORY-BASED STRATEGIES TO ENCOURAGE BEHAVIOUR CHANGE 6

3.1 Information 6

3.2. Tailored information and message framing 6

3.3. Commitment making (pledges) 7

3.4 Goal setting and implementation intentions 8

3.5 Feedback 8

3.6 Social influence approaches 8

3.7 The potential of gamification 8

4. BEHAVIOUR-CHANGE PROGRAMS IN THE REAL WORLD 9

4.1 Large-scale programs that work 9

4.2 How “sticky” are these strategies? 11

5. RECOMMENDATIONS 12

5.1 More information? Maybe not 12

5.2 Methods of evaluation 12

5.3 Work with experts 13

6. CONCLUSIONS 13

APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 14

ENDNOTES/REFERENCES 16

4

Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Humans have increased their rates of greenhouse gas emissions dramatically since 1970, despite a growing number of climate mitigation policies. Although most people are aware of climate change, and many are concerned about it, this concern does not always translate into action. In this white paper, we focus on why people in western industrialized society take climate action and how to implement programs that encourage action. This report finds those answers through the review of four decades of environmental psychological research evaluating the effectiveness of climate action information strategies.

Four broad categories of psychological theories explain motivations for engagement or avoidance of climate action: (i) rational choice theories postulate that human behaviour is mostly driven by self-interest and reasoned choices (weighing costs and benefits); (ii) theories of altruism propose that people engage in climate action because of their personal values, and they are sometimes will-ing to give up personal benefits for the sake of the environment; (iii) theories of multiple motiva-tions suggest that climate action may sometimes be driven by self-interest, and sometimes by altruism; and that (iv) people would engage in more climate action if they were not impeded by psychological or structural barriers. Psychological barriers are somewhat related to rational choice and a lack of altruism, and can prevent action through a variety of pathways, including lack of knowledge, cognitive biases, perceived risks, and social pressure, among others.

This psychological research spanning four decades provides strong empirical support for a number of strategies that encourage behaviour change. Providing tailored information, soliciting commit-ment (i.e., pledges), recruiting leaders from within social networks, giving feedback and using a variety of other social influence strategies can effectively increase climate-friendly behaviour.

Utility companies, governments and others have, at times, integrated these strategies into large-scale programs that can effectively reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Usually these psychology-based strategies are combined with traditional programs, such as rebates, incentives, pricing strategies and policies to increase consumer energy savings. The most effective programs often also deliver personalized feedback to residential utility customers (in the form of home energy reports or real-time feedback devices), or use other engagement tools such as competitions, training programs, home energy audits for homes or businesses, or targeted community-based programs.

This analysis shows that by applying tailored programs with proven behaviour-change strategies, program administrators can more effectively succeed in goals such as reducing energy con-sumption and encouraging low-carbon lifestyles. We recommend that programmers work with environmental psychologists or other social scientists to design behaviour change programs that target specific behaviours within specific populations. Strategies should try to match the motiva-tions, demographics, culture and values of their target audience. Importantly, programs should be designed with long-term behavioural persistence and program evaluation in mind. This means encouraging intrinsic motivation for behaviour change (e.g., personal satisfaction) in addition to extrinsic motivation (e.g., saving money). This report discusses several successful large-scale programs that were previously implemented that can serve as exemplars.

Overall, insights from psychological research can be used to make a significant impact on energy consumption and carbon footprints. This report highlights this work in ways that allow policy makers and program administrators to easily apply the research to design programs, implement carbon reduction campaigns, and mobilize climate action.

5

Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

1. INTRODUCTION

Anthropogenic GHG emissions have risen dramatically since 1970, with larger absolute increases occurring between 2000–2010, despite a growing number of climate mitigation policies.1

Although most people are aware of climate change, and many are concerned about it,2 this con-cern does not always translate into action, even though individual actions can have a significant effect. One BC Hydro survey from 2008 indicates that residential energy consumption could be reduced by 11% through behaviour change.3 Yet, it can be difficult to encourage environmentally friendly behaviours, and approaches aimed at doing so have had mixed success and uptake.4,5 Psychological research can provide useful insight into some of these barriers to behaviour change. More broadly, understanding the role of beliefs, perceptions, decision biases, and social processes that shape our day-to-day behaviours is an essential part of climate change mitigation strategies.

This paper, which complements the 2015 Synthesis of PICS-Funded Social Mobilization Research report,6 is designed as a practical guide for policy makers and others interested in motivating climate action. It will examine the human dimensions of climate change and ask the important question: how can people be mobilised and encouraged to engage in climate action?

2. THEORIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR AND BARRIERS TO CHANGE

Three main categories of psychological theories can explain motivations for pro-environmental behaviours: rational-choice theories, theories of altruism, and theories emphasising multiple motivations for behaviour change. A fourth category, theories of psychological barriers to change, can explain why people do not make enough pro-environmental choices.

Rational choice theories postulate that people make reasoned choices, weighing the costs and benefits and then choosing what is most beneficial for them personally. For example, the theory of planned behaviour,7 suggests that choices and behaviours are influenced by how individuals think and feel about those choices and behaviours’ (e.g., “It’s good,” or “Doing it makes me feel happy”), as well as perceived social norms about the behaviour (“Are other people doing it?”), and perceived control over the behaviour (“How easy is it to do?”). Thus, according to that rational choice theory, programs that target attitudes, perceived social norms, or perceived behavioural control, may successfully change behaviour. High-cost behaviours (in terms of time, effort and financial considerations), such as car use, may be best explained by rational choice theories.

Theories of altruism however, suggest that climate action is not entirely driven by self-interest. Instead, their values and beliefs direct individuals to give up personal benefits for the sake of external factors such as the environment or future generations. According to these theories, programs that encourage pro-environmental values from an early age might successfully change behaviour in the long term. Low-cost behaviours, such as recycling, may be best explained by altruistic theories.

Theories of multiple motivations explain that behaviour results from several internal drivers. For example, goal framing theory8 states that human behaviour is goal-directed, and goals determine which alternative behaviours are considered in any given situation. Sometimes actions are moti-vated by hedonic goals (“To feel better right now”) and sometimes they are motivated by gain goals (“To guard and improve one’s resources”). When individuals are in the frame of mind to act morally or ethically (to do the “right thing”), they are said to be pursuing normative goals, and during these times, they are most likely to take climate action.9 Therefore, incorporating those

6

Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

goals within key environmental decisions may encourage environmentally friendly choices and actions.

Theories of psychological barriers to climate action describe reasons why people do not act rather than why they do act. One prominent theory outlines seven categories of barriers with many sub-barriers.10 These include limited thinking about the problem, perceived risks, ideologies, discre-dence and mistrust (among others). This theory combines and reframes elements from altruistic and rational-choice theories to answer the question “Why do people fail to engage in climate actions?” According to this theory, programs that breakdown the psychological barriers to action will successfully change behaviour.

3. THEORY-BASED STRATEGIES TO ENCOURAGE BEHAVIOUR CHANGE

Interventions to promote environmentally friendly behaviours can be divided into two catego-ries.11 Informational strategies are aimed at changing knowledge, awareness, norms, and attitudes (e.g., information campaigns). Structural strategies are aimed at changing the circumstances in which behavioural decisions are made (e.g., technologies, incentives and policies). A combination of informational and structural strategies is generally needed to effectively reduce climate change impacts.

For example, although technological innovations are indeed important for reducing emissions, they may not always be used as intended. Human behaviour can counteract planned efficiency gains associated with technological innovations. As a simple example, US homes with older programmable thermostats (i.e., not newer “smart” thermostats, such as the Nest) sometimes use more energy than homes with manual thermostats because residents have difficulty understand-ing and using them.12 The interplay between informational and structural strategies is important. Psychological research has predominantly focused on evaluating the effectiveness of information strategies, which will be the topic of this paper. For more reviews of intervention strategies and theories see Appendix A.

3.1 InformationInformation campaigns are among the most widely used approaches to encourage behaviour changes. They have their roots in the so-called knowledge-deficit model. The underlying assump-tion is that people do not know about a specific environmental problem, or that they do not know what to do about it.13 Information provision aims to overcome this knowledge deficit by increasing awareness, which may increase concern and encourage individuals to change their behaviour. Information campaigns have the advantage that they are not particularly complicated to implement and can reach large numbers of people. However, although campaigns may increase awareness, and prime individuals for change, information alone does not always effectively change behaviour.14,15

3.2. Tailored information and message framingEnvironmental psychologists have identified several ways to increase the effectiveness of “tradi-tional” information provision. Tailored information is designed to reach a specific person or group based on characteristics unique to those individuals.16 Climate deniers, for example, tend to agree with the status quo (actively “justifying” the system), and therefore are often best persuaded by patriotic messages that support this worldview, such as those depicted in Figure 1.17

7

Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

Similarly, conservatives are more likely to respond to messages about “wasted energy”18 or “climate change”19 than “global warming”. Indeed, some of the most impactful behaviours are engaged in for non-environmental reasons, such as improving health or saving money.20 Tailored information can be very effective for encouraging behaviour change.21,22,23

Program designers may increase participation or action by making other subtle changes to their messages as well. For example, messages should focus on local, immediate impacts of climate change (that people can relate to) instead of global, future impacts, and they should also be con-nected to other concerns, such as health and economics when possible.24 For additional research on message framing, see Appendix A.

3.3. Commitment making (pledges)Commitment making or pledging is generally defined as the binding of an individual to a cer-tain opinion or behaviour.25 When people are asked to make pledges, such as to save energy or recycle, they are more likely to follow through with their planned actions, especially if the pledges are public.26 In one university competition to save energy (Campus Conservation Nationals), for example, participants made pledges using software that would automatically post the pledges to their Facebook profiles.27 For additional research on pledges and commitment making, see Appendix A.

Figure 1. Patriotic posters can encourage climate action. Photo credit: left, poster by Shepard Fairey (MoveOn.org); right, U.S. Department of Energy

8

Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

3.4 Goal setting and implementation intentionsGoal setting theory asserts that behaviour is goal-directed and that the anticipation of reaching an attractive goal motivates behaviour changes necessary to attain it.28 Goal setting is most effective when goals are high, but realistic, and the procedure works best when combined with other inter-vention strategies such as feedback.29 Moreover, goals should be clearly formulated and achievable within a short period of time. They can also be more readily achieved when people make concrete, step-by-step plans.30

3.5 FeedbackFeedback consists of giving individuals information about their performance; such as how much energy they saved. According to this theory, feedback increases climate-friendly behaviour because it gives insight into the links between certain outcomes (e.g., saving energy and therefore reduc-ing power bills) and the behaviour changes necessary to reach that outcome (e.g., switching off lights).31 The more frequently personalized feedback is given, the more effective it tends to be.32 In-home energy displays providing continuous real-time feedback are more effective than less frequent (monthly) feedback.33 Similar studies have also been conducted with appliance-integrated feedback.34

3.6 Social influence approachesSocial influence refers to the ways in which behaviour is affected by what others do or think.35 By comparing themselves to others, people learn what is possible, normal and approved of. These observations are internalized as social norms, and when norms supporting climate action are brought to individuals’ attention, they behave more pro-environmentally.36

Block leaders, energy champions and social networks can be leveraged to encourage climate action. Block leaders and energy champions are volunteers who help inform others in their social network (virtual or physical), community, or business about a certain issue or idea. The approach is based on the assumption that information provision will be more effective when it is conveyed by someone from within the same social network than from an external organization.37 One meta-analysis found this strategy to be the single most effective intervention strategy for encour-aging pro-environmental behaviour.38 Consequently, many behaviour-change programs, such as competitions and strategic energy management programs (described later), include energy champi-ons or individuals within the group to drive change.

3.7 The potential of gamificationGamification is a relatively recent development that employs the features of games with the aim of meeting a real-world climate action goal. Such games may take place in the real world, in a virtual world, or in a combination of these, and may be one-player or multi-player in nature. Gamifica-tion combines several effective behaviour-changing elements including feedback, social compari-son, extrinsic motivation (prizes) and intrinsic motivation (fun!). Simply competing, even without the prospect of a reward,39 may motivate participants because the activity is fun or challenging, and they do not want to lose.40 Although the effectiveness of games for reducing energy use or GHGs has not often been demonstrated in peer-reviewed publications, they are an important part of human culture. Therefore, well-designed action-oriented games would seem to have important potential.

One danger of the gamification approach is habituation and the eventual cessation of participa-tion. Successful games in this context, disrupt habits in favour of new ones, allow participants to

9

Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

frequently repeat desired actions, change behaviour triggers (reminders and prompts), and provide intrinsic rewards such as satisfaction, a sense of higher purpose, or pride. Competitions and games that change behaviour solely through extrinsic rewards are unlikely to cause lasting behaviour change (although this hypothesis requires more research). As noted in one review, “Maybe the best way to think about gamified energy efficiency solutions is to see them as training wheels, a way to introduce people to the intrinsic satisfaction of gliding along on their own two wheels after the game’s apparatus is removed.”41 That is, once the game helps people to establish new sustain-ability habits, its job is done, but the behaviour may well persist if the game is well-designed.

4. BEHAVIOUR-CHANGE PROGRAMS IN THE REAL WORLD

This section examines the design and outcomes of real-world carbon-reducing programs that have been primarily implemented by utility companies in the United States.

Historically, governments, utilities and other organizations interested in encouraging pro-environ-mental behaviours have relied on financial or policy-based strategies to change behaviour. Using the principles of reward and punishment, these approaches increase or decrease target behaviours through traditional theories of learning. For example, utility companies may offer financial incen-tives for energy efficient home upgrades or reduced prices for off-peak electricity use. Conversely, policy changes may punish anti-environmental behaviour, such as creating legal consequences for polluting.

These traditional approaches can be highly effective, but because they are extrinsically motivat-ing, the behaviour change they produce can be short-lived if the reinforcement or punishment is removed.42 Therefore, traditional behaviour-change programs should be complemented by intrinsi-cally motivating programs.

Recently, governments and businesses have turned to non-traditional social science based methods to change behaviour. Colloquially called “nudging,” these approaches apply the theories and principles described in this report to encourage behaviour change without necessarily employing economic or policy-based methods. Instead, these programs rely on social comparison, feedback, commitment or other strategies to increase climate action. These programs are less likely to erode intrinsic motivation than traditional approaches, but they may produce smaller effects than financial or policy-based approaches (although no formal comparison has yet been conducted to support this hypothesis).

4.1 Large-scale programs that workEnergy-use feedback and comparison strategies are the most popular option used in large scale programs implemented by utility companies. The most common behaviour change program in North America is the Home Energy Report (HER) program; often implemented by Opower com-pany43 –a cloud-based “customer engagement and energy efficiency service provider”. The program (which reached over 8.9 million homes in the US in 2013) involves sending HERs to residents (independently from their regular bills) each month (or, in some cases, bi-monthly or quarterly) information about their energy use compared to 100 similar homes.44 The reports typically also include energy saving tips and information about other energy efficiency programs (e.g., appliance recycling or home retrofit incentives). Utility companies typically automatically enrol customers in the program and find that they reduce electricity use by 1% to 2% by the end of their second year of receiving reports.45 This may seem like a modest amount, but the program’s opt-out design (whereby customers are automatically enrolled) results in higher savings overall because more

10

Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

people receive the feedback and social comparison information.46 In the eight years that Opower has produced these home energy reports, it claims to have saved over 11 terawatt-hours of electric-ity (equivalent to more than $1.1 billion for customers), which is enough to power over 1 million U.S. homes for a full year.47

Real-time energy feedback and “smart technology” programs are also being implemented more frequently. Utility and government programs have pilot tested the energy savings from installing these devices for customers. The Honeywell connected thermostat (a “smart” thermostat that can be controlled remotely) saves approximately 6.6% in space heating and cooling energy use (2-3% of home energy use) and $116 in annual energy costs per home with average weather (among 1,769 US. participants).48 Google’s Nest thermostat reduces energy consumption by roughly twice as much as older programmable thermostats.49 Smart thermostats, smart power strips (power strips that automatically sense when devices are off and “unplugs” them so that they cannot use phantom power), devices that automatically throttle air-conditioning use during peak heat event days, and similar tools are “control-based” devices; they automatically adjust energy use, without much human interaction.

Some utility companies provide customers with in-home displays or smartphone apps that show their real-time energy consumption. This works best to reduce consumption when the display is combined with additional strategies, such as incentives.50 Savings from information-based and control-based devices range broadly from about 1% to about 17% of energy consumption.51 For peak demand reduction on particularly hot days, devices controlled by the utilities that automati-cally reduce air conditioner (AC) use are more effective than in-home displays (note: customers can override the device if they so choose).52,53

Competitions and games are another go-to strategy for behaviour change in the real world. At least 53 such games and competitions based on gamification theory have been developed in North America to encourage energy saving and pro-environmental behaviour in residential, commercial, workplace, and campus settings.54 Examples include Power House (a single-player computer game),55 CALS Green Energy (an intra-building competition in California),56 and Energy Star’s Top Cities Challenge (a US-wide inter-city competition).57 Program implementers usually find that these types of competitions reduce real life electricity use by 5% or less, but sometimes they save as much as 14% to 30%.58 Importantly, however, these programs are not as robustly evaluated as HER or other feedback programs (they do not use experimental designs with large samples), and participants must choose to participate (unlike HER programs, in which they are automatically enrolled).

Energy audits involve experts who examine buildings for areas of inefficiency or energy loss, and then provide recommendations for increasing efficiency. Many utilities and public utility commis-sions have offered reduced-cost (or free) residential or commercial energy audits for many years (e.g., RunItRight by Enbridge Gas in Ontario). These programs usually come with free low-cost or no-cost upgrades (e.g., faucet aerators or energy-efficient light bulbs) in addition to recom-mendations for other investments in retrofits and upgrades. The programs earn large-scale savings if they successfully persuade customers to invest in additional major energy-saving products. To this end, energy auditors that do more than simply provide information about which products and rebates are most effective; their personal attention is also vital. A review of energy advisor (audi-tor) programs,59 concluded that advisors should guide customers through three types of barriers: information barriers (providing knowledge about actions that can save energy and associated rebate programs), decision-making barriers (e.g., reviewing results with the customer), and transactional barriers (e.g., scheduling and paper work).

11

Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

Community-based programs target groups of individuals in residential neighbourhoods or in commercial businesses. These programs usually combine a number of behavioural strategies to encourage change within the target group. For example, AEP Ohio’s Community Energy Savers program incorporated goal‐setting, feedback, and peer‐to‐peer interactions as well as outreach strategies such as door-to-door canvassing, attending local events, and hanging posters in local businesses, among others. Communities that met their participation goals also received a cash reward from the company. The program successfully increased energy savings, awareness of, and participation in, other energy efficiency programs. AEP Ohio attributed 662,704kWh of energy savings to the program, which enrolled 1,164 participants.60

In the Netherlands, a combination of tailored information, goal setting and tailored feedback was effective for increasing knowledge, changing behaviour and encouraging energy conservation.61 Other PICS-funded social mobilization studies typically fall into this category.62

One effective behaviour-change strategy is to design a community-based social marketing (CBSM) program. This involves (1) identifying a specific behaviour to change, (2) identifying barriers and benefits of change within the target population, (3) selecting behaviour-change strategies and developing an intervention, (4) implementing the program, and (5) evaluating the program.63 The method is effective because it allows for tailored messages and targeted interventions, while also systematically evaluating success. In one recent example, it increased the purchase of energy efficient LED light bulbs by 896% in two stores in North Carolina.64

Training and education programs in schools or businesses specifically target carbon emissions reductions. Environmental and energy education programs in K-12 schools can increase concern about climate change,65 which may lead to pro-environmental action later in life. However, the short-term effectiveness of these programs is difficult to quantify in terms of carbon emissions reductions.

Commercial and industrial energy-efficiency training (sometimes called Strategic Energy Manage-ment), on the other hand, is relatively well-evaluated and has demonstrated electricity and gas savings of up to 23%.66 BC Hydro, for example, offered a Continuous Optimization for Com-mercial Buildings program that is cost-effective, has been implemented by 115 customers at 442 sites, and saves an average of approximately 7% electricity and 11% gas. a The program incorpo-rates training for in-house experts at each commercial building, as well as regular energy audits to help set and monitor energy savings goals. This program requires training, recruiting, and reward-ing energy champions or energy managers at host institutions, and thus combines the strategies of goal setting, education, incentives, block leaders and others to reduce energy consumption in commercial buildings.

4.2 How “sticky” are these strategies?How long do energy savings from these programs last? The answer depends partly on the types of behaviours that are changed. Programs targeting “curtailment behaviours” (small frequently repeated behaviours) will only create persistent energy reduction if they change participants’ habits relatively permanently.67 Programs targeting “efficiency behaviours” (one time investments in energy efficiency upgrades) will usually save energy for the entire life of the product in which they

a (For a summary of this program and other Canadian programs, http://www.exec.gov.nl.ca/exec/ccee/publications/canadian_energy_efficiency_programs_part_b.pdf).

12

Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

invested.68 Thus, home energy audit programs and strategic energy management programs (with heavy audit-and-upgrade components) likely have long energy savings persistence, but the long-term savings of other programs is less clear.

Home Energy Report programs, with their strong evaluation methods, offer some evidence of persistence. Savings from these programs ramps up over the first two years and appears to last for at least five years, as long as consumers continue receiving reports (little is known about HER programs beyond five years).69,70 Furthermore, participants engage in a pattern of “action and backsliding” as they respond to reports, suggesting that the majority of savings come from habits that are developing over the first two years.71 Once the two-year mark is reached, program admin-istrators can expect savings from discontinued programs to last for at least another two years, with about a 20% reduction in savings each year.72

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

All of the programs and strategies outlined in this report can reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions. We recommend that program administrators choose to implement programs and strategies that best match the motivations, demographics and values of their target audience. For example, programs that target a community or business might consider a community-based pro-gram with volunteer energy champions. A program that targets household residential behaviours might be better served with in-home feedback devices or home energy reports. Programs which target tight-knit social groups that enjoy competition such as university students, might include a game or competition to save energy. The most effective programs weave together strategies such as goal setting, tailored information, public commitment, and social comparison.

5.1 More information? Maybe notKnowledge of the causes and effects of climate change, or of the costs and benefits of action are important but sometimes not enough to encourage action. Failure to act is not always a result of knowledge deficits. In one review of pro-environmental behaviour change strategies, providing instructions was, on average, the least effective. In many cases individuals are aware of the prob-lem and of what they can do to solve it, but they have conflicting goals, believe that the behaviour is too difficult, or that the action is not socially supported.75 Therefore, strategies that tackle these other psychological barriers may sometimes be more effective than those that simply inform the public about the issues.

5.2 Methods of evaluationMany large-scale behaviour change programs share a key shortcoming – lack of well-designed evaluation. We recommend that program implementers build effective evaluation into their programs from inception. Specifically, they should consider (1) which specific behaviour they will target, and (2) how they will measure increases or decreases in that behaviour.

Community-based social marketing offers a structured step-by-step solution for developing such a program. It starts with identifying a target behaviour within a specific target population and then choosing the appropriate behavioural tools for instigating change (see Appendix A for more information about CBSM and other intervention strategies). Prior to implementing a large-scale program, we recommend piolet-testing the intervention with one or more groups.

Ideally, evaluation would include direct observation of the behaviour or tracking usage with meters (rather than self-reported intentions or actions) within a large representative sample of the

13

Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

population, using a comparison group. This would allow the greatest confidence that the interven-tion is causing a change in behaviour, rather than some other external factor causing the change (such as the weather, participants’ pre-existing motivations, etc.).

The least preferable study design is a simple pre-post study, in which behaviour is observed in a single group before and after the intervention. This design poorly controls external factors such as participants’ pre-existing motivations or their natural tendency to change over time. The most preferable design is a randomized control trial with a large and representative sample, in which participants are randomly assigned to control or intervention groups. This design controls for known and unknown factors, but it is often impractical (for example, one cannot easily assign groups to purchase an electric versus internal combustion engine vehicle). Alternatively, programs may be evaluated using quasi-experimental methods such as recruit-and-delay (sometimes called “waitlist controls”). These methods involve comparing outcomes from participants who receive the intervention with the outcomes for those who were recruited, but are on a waitlist for the interven-tion. This study design controls many (but not all) external factors. The best studies combine a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods, such as in-depth case studies and analysis of large data sets. See Appendix A for more resources on evaluation methodology.

Changing defaults is an effective behavioural strategy for increasing participation rates in programs, but it can also disguise energy savings. Opt-in programs will usually boast higher percent savings (relative to the number of participants) than opt-out programs (where people are automatically enrolled) because consumers are highly motivated to participate. However, the opt-in programs might not necessarily save more energy in an absolute sense because fewer people participate. Furthermore, unless the program is evaluated using a strong experimental or quasi-experimental design, the success of opt-in programs may be attributed to the pre-existing motivations of participants rather than the intervention. Therefore, we recommend that program administrators look at more than percent savings when they decide between program types.

5.3 Work with expertsUtilities and government regulators that are familiar with traditional program implementation strategies (e.g., rebates or incentives) may be tempted to create and administer behaviour change programs on their own. We caution against this because traditional programs differ in important ways from social science-based behaviour programs. Many elements of behaviour change programs involve challenges that social scientists have experience addressing, such as recruiting participants, administering surveys and designing evaluations. Field experiments of large scale programs can be difficult to implement and, therefore, we recommend working with experienced social science researchers when designing behaviour change programs (see Appendix A).

6. CONCLUSIONS

The human dimensions of climate change are important to consider when designing a program to encourage climate action. This report presents evidence-based solutions, derived from environmen-tal psychology research spanning four decades, about a variety of strategies and programs, each with strengths and weaknesses. The research shows that providing tailored information, soliciting commitment (i.e., pledges), recruiting leaders from within social networks, giving feedback and using a variety of other social influence strategies can effectively increase climate-friendly behav-iour. The long-term persistence of behaviour change derived by these programs should be the subject of future research.

14

Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Behaviour Change Interventions and Theories for Climate ActionAbrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies

aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 273-291.

Dwyer, W. O., Leeming, F. C., Cobern, M. K., & Porter, B. E. (1993). Critical review of behavioral interventions to preserve the environment: Research since 1980. Environment and Behavior, 25, 275-321.

Schultz, P. W. (2014). Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior: Lots of tools but few instructions. European Psychologist, 19(2), 107-117.

McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Smith, W. A. (1999). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publications.

Strategies for Message FramingMoser, S. & Dilling, L. (2007). Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and

facilitating social change. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pledge and Commitment StrategiesLokhorst, A. M., Werner, C., Staats, H., van Dijk, E., & Gale, J. L. (2011). Commitment and

behavior change: A meta-analysis and critical review of commitment-making strategies in environmental research. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), 3-34.

Large Scale Behaviour Change Programs for Reducing Energy UseSussman, R., & Chikumbo, M. (2016). Behavior change programs: Status and impact.

Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Evaluation StrategiesGifford, R. (Ed.) (2016). Research methods for environmental psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Illume Advising, Indicia Consulting, & Vine, E. (2015). Energy efficiency behavioral programs: Literature review, benchmarking analysis, and evaluation guidelines. Retrieved on September 21, 2016, from: http://mn.gov/commerce-stat/pdfs/card-report-energy-efficiency-behavorial-prog.pdf

Where to Find Applied Social Science Research ExpertsEnvironmental Psychology Division of the Canadian Psychological Association. Visit the

website to post a job, or contact the executive team for suggestions in your area. https://cpaenvironmentalpsychologysection.wordpress.com/

Behavioral Science & Policy Association. Recruit applicants by visiting the website to post a request for a behavioral science consultant. https://behavioralpolicy.org/jobs-and-calls/#job-posting

Global Directory of Environmental Psychologists. Browse for researchers in your geographical area or with your specific research interest. http://web.uvic.ca/~epcensus

Environmental Psychology Division (Division 34) of the American Psychological Association. Visit the website to post a request for a social science consultant, or contact the executive team for suggestions in your area. You can also browse the international list of universities with

15

Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

Environmental Psychology graduate programs to identify and contact one near you. http://www.apadivisions.org/division-34/

Behavior, Energy and Climate Change (BECC) LinkedIn group. Many social science consultants and researchers are active in this group. Post a job or request for assistance for the group to respond to. https://www.linkedin.com/groups/3794406

16

Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

ENDNOTES/REFERENCES1 https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf2 Nisbet, M. C., & Myers, T. (2007). The polls--Trends: Twenty years of public opinion about global warm-ing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 444-470.3 Sahota, R., Sulyma, I., Tiedemann, K., & Habart, J. (2008). Behaviour and Energy Savings in Residential Dwellings. ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. http://aceee.org/files/proceedings/2008/data/papers/7_5.pdf4 Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 273-291. 5 Dwyer, W. O., Leeming, F. C., Cobern, M. K., & Porter, B. E. (1993). Critical review of behavioral inter-ventions to preserve the environment: Research since 1980. Environment and Behavior, 25, 275-321.6 Sheppard, S., Iype, D. M., Cote, S., & Salter, J. (2015). Special Report–A Synthesis of PICS-Funded Social Mobilization Research. Vancouver, BC: Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. http://pics.uvic.ca/synthesis-pics-funded-social-mobilization-research7 Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211. 8 Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behav-ior. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 117-137. 9 Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behav-ior. Journal of Social issues, 63(1), 117-137. 10 Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290-302. 11 Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309-317.12 Meier, A., Aragon, C., Peffer, T., Perry, D., & Pritoni, M. (2011). Usability of residential thermostats: Preliminary investigations. Building and Environment, 46(10), 1891-1898. 13 Schultz, P. W. (2002). Knowledge, information, and household recycling: Examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change. In T. Dietz & P. C. Stern (Eds.) New tools for environmental protection: Educa-tion, information, and voluntary measures, 67-82. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.14 Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. C. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior a five-country survey. Jour-nal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 29(4), 540-558. 15 Staats, H. J., Wit, A. P., & Midden, C. Y. H. (1996). Communicating the greenhouse effect to the public: Evaluation of a mass media campaign from a social dilemma perspective. Journal of Environmental Manage-ment, 46(2), 189-203. 16 Kreuter, M. W., Farrell, D., Olevitch, L., & Brennan, L. (1999). Tailored Health Messages: Customizing Communication with Computer Technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lewrence Erlbaum.17 Feygina, I., Goldsmith, R. E., & Jost, J. T. (2010). System justification and the disruption of environmen-tal goal-setting: A self-regulatory perspective. In Y. Trope (Ed.), Self Control in Society, Mind, and Brain (pp. 490-505). New York, NY: Oxford.18 Corner, A., Marshall, G., & Clarke, J. (2016). Communicating effectively with the centre-right about household energy-efficiency and renewable energy technologies. Retrieved On September 21, 2016, from Ox-ford: http://climateoutreach.org/resources/centre-right-renewable-energy/19 Schuldt, J. P., Konrath, S. H., & Schwarz, N. (2011). ‘‘Global warming’’ or ‘‘climate change’’? Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 115-124. 20 Whitmarsh, L. (2009). Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 13-23.

17

Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

21 Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2007). The effect of tailored information, goal set-ting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related behaviors, and behavioral antecedents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 265-276. 22 Daamen, D. D., Staats, H., Wilke, H. A., & Engelen, M. (2001). Improving environmental behavior in companies: The effectiveness of tailored versus nontailored interventions. Environment and Behavior, 33(2), 229-248.23 Winett, R. A., Love, S. Q., & Kidd, C. (1982). The effectiveness of an energy specialist and extension agents in promoting summer energy conservation by home visits. Journal of Environmental Systems, 12(1), 61-70.24 Leiserowitz, A. (2007). Communicating the risks of global warming: American risk perceptions, affective images, and interpretive communities. In S. C. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change: Com-municating climate change and facilitating social change (pp. 44-63). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.25 Kiesler, C. A. (1971). The Psychology of Commitment. New York: Academic Press.26 Pallak, M. S., & Cummings, W. (1976). Commitment and voluntary energy conservation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 27-30. 27 Vine, E., & Jones, C. (2015). A Review of Energy Reduction Competitions: What Have We Learned? Prepared by CIEE (California Institute for Energy and Environment). Sacramento: California Public Utilities Commission. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/30x859hv - page-1.28 Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.29 Becker, L. J. (1978). Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: A field study of residential energy conservation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 428-433.30 Gallo, I. S., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2007). Implementation intentions: A Look Back at Fifteen Years of Progress. Psicothema, 19(1), 37-42. 31 Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254.32 Karlin, B., Zinger, J. F., & Ford, R. (2015). The effects of feedback on energy conservation: A meta-analy-sis. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 1205-1227. 33 Van Houwelingen, J. H., & Van Raaij, W. F. (1989). The effect of goal-setting and daily electronic feedback on in-home energy use. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 98-105.34 Wood, G., & Newborough, M. (2003). Dynamic energy-consumption indicators for domestic appliances: environment, behaviour and design. Energy and Buildings, 35(8), 821-841.35 Forgas, J. P., Williams, K. D. (2001). Social influence: Direct and Indirect Processes. Philadelphia: The Psy-chology Press.36 Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J., Cialdini, R., Goldstein, N., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destruc-tive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429-434.37 Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. 38 Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2013). Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: a meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1773-1785.39 Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the ef-fects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668.40 Haran, U., & Ritov, I. (2014). Know who you’re up against: Counterpart identifiability enhances competi-tive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 115-121.

18

Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

41 Grossberg, Wolfson, Mazur-Stommen, Farley, & Nadel (2015). Gamified energy efficiency programs. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficency Economy. p.54. http://aceee.org/research-report/b1501 42 Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the ef-fects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668. 43 Allcott, H., & Rogers, T. (2014). The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: Experi-mental evidence from energy conservation. American Economic Review, 104, 3003-3037. 44 Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 1082-1095. 45 Sussman, R., & Chikumbo, M. (2016). Behavior change programs: Status and impact. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. http://aceee.org/research-report/b160146 Todd, A. (2015, October). Default bias, follow‐on behavior and welfare in residential electricity pricing programs. Paper presented at meeting of the Behavior, Energy and Climate Change conference, Sacramento, CA. 47 Kotran, A. (2016). Opower’s Utility Partners Save 11 Terawatt-Hours of Energy. Business Wire June 10. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160610005486/en/Opower’s-Utility-Partners-Save-11-Terawatt-Hours-Energy.48 Cadmus. (2014). Energy Savings from Honeywell Total Connect Comfort Thermostats. Golden Valley, MN: Bryan Ward, James Stewart, & Jeremy Jackson.49 NEEP (Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership). (2015). Opportunities for home energy management systems (HEMS) in advancing residential energy efficiency programs. Retrieved on September 21, 2016, from http://www.neep.org/sites/default/files/resources/2015%20HEMS%20Research%20Report.pdf50 Karlin, B., Zinger, J. F., & Ford, R. (2015). The effects of feedback on energy conservation: A meta-analy-sis. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 1205-1227. 51 NEEP (Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership). (2015). Opportunities for home energy management systems (HEMS) in advancing residential energy efficiency programs. Retrieved on September 21, 2016, from http://www.neep.org/sites/default/files/resources/2015%20HEMS%20Research%20Report.pdf52 Opinion Dynamics Corporation and DNV-GL. (2015). PY2013–2014 California Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Residential Behavior Market Characterization Study Report Volume 1. Prepared for Cali-fornia Public Utilities Commission Energy Division. http://www.calmac.org/publications/CPUC_3P_Re-port_Vol_I_DRAFT_Published_Aug_2_2016.pdf 53 Jiang, G. (2015, October). A Demand Response Double Play: Residential Peak Time Rebate and Small Customer Technology Deployment Programs. Paper presented at the meeting of the Behavior, Energy and Climate Change conference, Sacramento, CA. http://beccconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ab-stract_jiang.pdf 54 Grossberg, Wolfson, Mazur-Stommen, Farley, & Nadel (2015). Gamified energy efficiency programs. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficency Economy. 55 Reeves, B., Cummings, J. J., Scarborough, J. K., & Yeykelis, L. (2015). Increasing energy efficiency with entertainment media an experimental and field test of the influence of a social game on performance of en-ergy behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 47, 102-115. 56 Dixon, G. N., Deline, M. B., McComas, K., Chambliss, L., & Hoffmann, M. (2015). Using comparative feedback to influence workplace energy conservation: A case study of a university campaign. Environment and Behavior, 47(6), 667-693. 57 https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/topcities58 Sussman, R., & Chikumbo, M. (2016). Behavior change programs: Status and impact. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. http://aceee.org/research-report/b1601

59 Billingsley, M. A., Stratton, C., & Fadrhonc, E. M. (2016). Energy Advisors: Improving Customer Experience and Efficiency Program Outcomes. Retrieved on September 21, 2016, from: http://eetd.lbl.gov/publications/energy-advisors-improving-customer-ex60 Henderson, C., Dwelley, A., & Hubbard, S. (2015, October). Savings beyond the tracking sheet: Measuring behavioral change at a community level in AEP Ohio’s Community Energy Savers Pilot. Paper presented at the meeting of the Behavior, Energy and Climate Change conference, Sacramento, CA. 61 Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2007). The effect of tailored information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related behaviors, and behavioral antecedents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 265-276. 62 Sheppard, S., Iype, D. M., Cote, S., & Salter, J. (2015). Special Report–A Synthesis of PICS-Funded Social Mobilization Research. Vancouver, BC: Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions.63 McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Schultz, P. W. (2014). Choosing effective behavior change tools. Social Marketing Quarterly, 20, 35-46. 64 Schultz, P. W., Colehour, J., Vohr, J., Bonn, L., Bullock, A., & Sadler, A. (2015). Using social marketing to spur residential adoption of ENERGY STAR®-certified LED lighting. Social Marketing Quarterly, 1524500415577429.65 Taber, F., & Taylor, N. (2009). Climate of concern — A search for effective strategies for teaching children about global warming. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4, 97-116. 66 Sussman, R., & Chikumbo, M. (2016). Behavior change programs: Status and impact. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. http://aceee.org/research-report/b160167 Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424. 68 Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424.69 Khawaja, M. S., & Stewart, J. (2014). Long-Run Savings and Cost-Effectiveness of Home Energy Reports Programs. Cadmus Group Inc. 70 Sussman, R., & Chikumbo, M. (2016). Behavior change programs: Status and impact. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. http://aceee.org/research-report/b160171 Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 1082-1095. 72 Khawaja, M. S., & Stewart, J. (2014). Long-Run Savings and Cost-Effectiveness of Home Energy Reports Programs. Cadmus Group Inc. 73 Marteau, T. M., Sowden, A. J., & Armstrong, D. (1998). Implementing research findings into prac-tice: beyond the information deficit model. In A. Haines, & A. Donald (Eds.), Getting research findings into practice (36-42). London, UK: BMJ Publishing Group.74 Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J. P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: Meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior, 44, 257–299. 75 Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitiga-tion and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66, 290-302.

University of VictoriaPO Box 1700 STN CSCVictoria, BC V8W 2Y2

Phone 250-853-3595 E-mail pics@uvic.ca

Web pics.uvic.ca